Motion monitoring for cranial frameless stereotactic radiosurgery using video‐based three‐dimensional optical surface imaging

PurposeNoninvasive frameless systems are increasingly being utilized for head immobilization in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Knowing the head positioning reproducibility of frameless systems and their respective ability to limit intrafractional head motion is important in order to safely perform SRS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the intrafractional head motion of an invasive frame and a series of frameless systems for single fraction SRS and fractionated/hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT/HF‐SRT).MethodsThe noninvasive PinPoint system was used on 15 HF‐SRT and 21 SRS patients. Intrafractional motion for these patients was compared to 15 SRS patients immobilized with Cosman‐Roberts‐Wells (CRW) frame, and a FSRT population that respectively included 23, 32, and 15 patients immobilized using Gill‐Thomas‐Cosman (GTC) frame, Uniframe, and Orfit. All HF‐SRT and FSRT patients were treated using intensity‐modulated radiation therapy on a linear accelerator equipped with cone‐beam CT (CBCT) and a robotic couch. SRS patients were treated using gantry‐mounted stereotactic cones. The CBCT image‐guidance protocol included initial setup, pretreatment and post‐treatment verification images. The residual error determined from the post‐treatment CBCT was used as a surrogate for intrafractional head motion during treatment.ResultsThe mean intrafractional motion over all fractions with PinPoint was 0.62 ± 0.33 mm and 0.45 ± 0.33 mm, respectively, for the HF‐SRT and SRS cohort of patients (P‐value = 0.266). For CRW, GTC, Orfit, and Uniframe, the mean intrafractional motions were 0.30 ± 0.21 mm, 0.54 ± 0.76 mm, 0.73 ± 0.49 mm, and 0.76 ± 0.51 mm, respectively. For CRW, PinPoint, GTC, Orfit, and Uniframe, intrafractional motion exceeded 1.5 mm in 0%, 0%, 5%, 6%, and 8% of all fractions treated, respectively.ConclusionsThe noninvasive PinPoint system and the invasive CRW frame stringently limit cranial intrafractional motion, while the latter provides superior immobilization. Based on the results of this study, our clinical practice for malignant tumors has evolved to apply an invasive CRW frame only for metastases in eloquent locations to minimize normal tissue exposure.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

To frame or not to frame? Cone‐beam CT‐based analysis of head immobilization devices specific to linac‐based stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy

Babic

Lee

Ruschin

et al. 2018

“…Once the patient was positioned based on CBCT, a new reference AlignRT image was acquired and used with a frame rate of 2–3 Hz to detect patient motion during treatment. The beam‐off threshold set for AlignRT motion monitoring was ±1.5 mm for all translations and ±1.0˚ for all rotations 7, 8…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional experience with SRS VMAT planning for multiple cranial metastases

Ballangrud

Kuo

Happersett

et al. 2018

Self Cite

Background and PurposeThis study summarizes the cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) procedure at our institution.Materials and MethodsVolumetric modulated arc therapy plans were generated for 40 patients with 188 lesions (range 2–8, median 5) in Eclipse and treated on a TrueBeam STx. Limitations of the custom beam model outside the central 2.5 mm leaves necessitated more than one isocenter pending the spatial distribution of lesions. Two to nine arcs were used per isocenter. Conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI) and target dose heterogeneity index (HI) were determined for each lesion. Dose to critical structures and treatment times are reported.ResultsLesion size ranged 0.05–17.74 cm3 (median 0.77 cm3), and total tumor volume per case ranged 1.09–26.95 cm3 (median 7.11 cm3). For each lesion, HI ranged 1.2–1.5 (median 1.3), CI ranged 1.0–2.9 (median 1.2), and GI ranged 2.5–8.4 (median 4.4). By correlating GI to PTV volume a predicted GI = 4/PTV0.2 was determined and implemented in a script in Eclipse and used for plan evaluation. Brain volume receiving 7 Gy (V 7 Gy) ranged 10–136 cm3 (median 42 cm3). Total treatment time ranged 24–138 min (median 61 min).ConclusionsVolumetric modulated arc therapy provide plans with steep dose gradients around the targets and low dose to critical structures, and VMAT treatment is delivered in a shorter time than conventional methods using one isocenter per lesion. To further improve VMAT planning for multiple cranial metastases, better tools to shorten planning time are needed. The most significant improvement would come from better dose modeling in Eclipse, possibly by allowing for customizing the dynamic leaf gap (DLG) for a special SRS model and not limit to one DLG per energy per treatment machine and thereby remove the limitation on the Y‐jaw and allow planning with a single isocenter.

“…Surface imaging is capable of providing full 3D monitoring of patient position in near real time. The commercially available AlignRT (VisionRT, London, UK) 3D surface imaging system has shown the abilities to detect submillimeter changes in patient position 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 and to accurately localize breast patients for free breathing 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 and deep inspiration breath‐hold treatments 22 , 23 to better than 5 mm. These works have shown that AlignRT is capable of accurately and reproducibly positioning breast tissue relative to treatment isocenter for initial patient positioning and, prior to beam‐on, for breath‐hold treatments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface imaging‐based analysis of intrafraction motion for breast radiotherapy patients

Wiant

Wentworth

Mäurer

et al. 2014

Breast treatments are becoming increasingly complex as the use of modulated and partial breast therapies becomes more prevalent. These methods are predicated on accurate and precise positioning for treatment. However, the ability to quantify intrafraction motion has been limited by the excessive dose that would result from continuous X‐ray imaging throughout treatment. Recently, surface imaging has offered the opportunity to obtain 3D measurements of patient position throughout breast treatments without radiation exposure. Thirty free‐breathing breast patients were monitored with surface imaging for 831 monitoring sessions. Mean translations and rotations were calculated over each minute, each session, and over all sessions combined. The percentage of each session that the root mean squares (RMS) of the linear translations were outside of defined tolerances was determined for each patient. Correlations between mean translations per minute and time, and between standard deviation per minute and time, were evaluated using Pearson's r value. The mean RMS translation averaged over all patients was 2.39.15emmm±1.88.15emmm. The patients spent an average of 34%, 17%, 9%, and 5% of the monitoring time outside of 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm RMS tolerances, respectively. The RMS values averaged over all patients were 2.71.15emmm±1.83.15emmm, 2.76±2.27, and 2.98.15emmm±2.30.15emmm over the 5th, 10th, and 15th minutes of monitoring, respectively. The RMS values (r=0.73,p=0) and standard deviations (r=0.88,p=0) over all patients showed strong significant correlations with time. We see that the majority of patients' treatment time is spent within 5 mm of the isocenter and that patient position drifts with increasing treatment time. Treatment length should be considered in the planning process. An 8 mm margin on a target volume would account for 2 SDs of motion for a treatment up to 15 minutes in length.PACS numbers: 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.56.Da, 87.63.L‐